San Juan County Commissioner found guilty for role in Recapture Canyon ATV protest at Blanding
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2015/05/03/mgk-san-juan-county-commissioner-found-guilty-of-role-in-recapture-canyon-atv-protest-at-blanding/#.VVtcU1KUDIV

Or can a member still go to the temple even if he or she disregards the 12th article of faith?

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.12?lang=eng

...I'm dealing with a situation right now where my BIL Bishop is being indicted by CFTC for a MLM-type fraud case. Nothing yet from LDS management. I think he has to be convicted first...........

...innocent until proven guilty still applies........hopefully.

...maybe. Sometimes I think Bishops figure the legal penalty is enough, if the person says they repent.

But other Bishops figure the church's pristine image would be stained if discipline is withheld.

Consistency. Does not exist in the Morg vocabulary.

Years ago I knew someone, a BIC but inactive, who was convicted of manslaughter. He claimed innocence, but was convicted anyway. Two days after the secular court conviction, he received a letter from the SP, telling him he'd been excommunicated from the church (he was an inactive RM elder).

Less than a year later, he won an appeal for his conviction (there was police fraud involved, as well as someone who confessed to the crime). Had his conviction overturned, was released. He had already decided to not return to the church, but he asked anyway if his excommunication, which was based on a false secular "guilty" verdict, would also be reversed.

He was told it would not, but that he was welcome to "work his way back" and be re-baptized.

So much for divine discernment from the church, eh? :)

That is effed up!

michaelm (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is effed up!

They can't admit they made a mistake, and that their "prayerfully inspired" excommunication was actually just rubber-stamping a false secular jury verdict. Sigh.

When you're released on a technicality (being innocent), it doesn't mean the original conviction was 'wrong.

I'm sure the SP figured out later that he was inspired to know that while your friend had nothing to do with the death, he was glad that the death had occurred, so naturally, it called for being loved out of the church.

Lawbreaker is a pretty broad term. Did you include sales tax for the stuff you bought online, when you filed your state income tax? If not, you're a lawbreaker. Just saying.

A murder conviction is automatic excommunication. For lesser crimes, it depends on the circumstances. At least those used to be the CHI rules.

But in reference to the link, the man was found guilty in a trial.

It depends on what law was broken. Usually, a conviction does not result in excommunication. Grant Palmer spent the end of his career working with LDS prisoners.

Unless is some sort of sexual crime. In that case, cover it up and pay off the victims or make them feel like it was their fault.

Convicted child molesters have continued to work in LDS scouting, wreaking further havoc on people's lives while the facts have been hidden from unsuspecting members.

No. Only members who publicly embarrass them and people other members have targeted.

It is always a targeted thing in my experience. Their rules are not in sync with the law.

I was an inactive that was ex'd for what the church termed as "illegal cohabitation".


What that really meant was my mother was pissed that I was marrying a nevermo, and she went on an excommunication rampage.

I laugh everytime I think about that. It's really very funny. Yeah, lock me up and send me to hell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2015 12:46PM by madalice.

A relative of mine was convicted of at least one felony and was excommunicated. According to his grandparents who worked at the prison as LDS volunteers, most members were exed when their primary residence became prison.

As a side note, in communicating with him, he has no problem with being exed and actually welcomed it, citing the troubles he was given by the morg for his relationship with his common-law wife. His mom, however, doesn't even want to admit it happened. She was devastated over it.

The church handbook of instructions used to state that a criminal conviction could be used as prima facie evidence to excommunicate a member. That's usually the case, but I'm aware of at least one exception. Around 1982, I was the clerk in a ward whose area contained the federal prison at Maxwell AFB in Alabama (the same prison Nixon's convicted attorney general John Mitchell served time in.) Some higher-up in SLC sent us the word that a relative of a prominent church leader had been convicted of a crime and was being sent to Maxwell. We were informed that the guy had not been ex'ed, and would not be. The guy's wife came to visit him one week, and he got a pass to come to church that Sunday. We were told to accept him and treat him cordially.

The story we heard was that the guy had been an accountant or some other high-ranking job in a California corporation which had reportedly been involved in criminal activity. The feds convicted all of the company officers, including the Mormon guy. We were informed that the guy was innocent, but that he was caught up in the investigation and was convicted along with the wrongdoers. It's been more than 30 years ago, but I think the guy's name was Atwood or Atwell or something like that.

The entire concept of excommunication is "un-Christian" in my opinion. Why would the god described in the New Testament encourage any church to add additional punishment to a civil court decision. Isn't the point of a church to provide support and aid people with their spiritual needs? It would seem that a person who has been through the court system would be in particular need of help and I don't see any benefit to adding an additional burden. I can understand not calling them to teaching and leadership positions but excommunication is nonsensical. If a minister, bishop, etc thinks that opening their doors, membership, and support to those with convictions somehow reflects poorly on the church, then it would seem they do not understand their own scriptures.

the unmethodical Methodist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The entire concept of excommunication is "un-Christian"...

Isn't the point of a church to
provide support and aid people with their spiritual needs? It would seem that a person who has been through the court system would be in particular need of help and I don't see any benefit... If a minister, bishop, etc thinks that opening their doors, membership, and support to those with convictions somehow reflects poorly on the church, then it would seem they do not understand their own scriptures.


So I won't (try).

Amen unmethodical Methodist.

There is a local place called The Open Door. People are welcome there.

Jesus Christ's Church would be open to everyone. It wouldn't be an exclusive club that requires different people to follow different rules... and kick them out when they don't believe exactly the same rhetoric.

Mormonism is a sinkhole.

It can't save anyone - not even itself. Especially when it doesn't know what it is.

LDSink likes dragging lovers through the mud. It is a hater. It keeps itself company.

M@t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2015 11:03AM by moremany.

if a member committed a felony offense regardless of whether the person was convicted of the crime or not convicted.

SLC keeps records of felonies just in case a person's name is submitted for BP, SP, or higher. Also, if the members know that Brother X committed a felony, it would be difficult for him to be sustained in let alone have anyone support the person in their new calling.

SLC tries to keep the kettle of potential leaders white-some and delight-some.

Former Tech Groupy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if a member committed a felony offense regardless
> of whether the person was convicted of the crime
> or not convicted.

If the person wasn't convicted, how does the local leadership know they committed a felony offense? If they ARE convicted, how do they know they committed a felony offense (people are wrongly convicted all the time)?

That's the point I was trying to make in my (true) story about a wrongfully convicted person who got ex'd: that there's no "spiritual discernment" involved, or even any effort to get at facts. The church just goes along with secular courts, even when they're wrong. A clearer example of no "discernment" I can't think of.

If you have ever been on the raw end of the stick, you would recognize their passion to convict despite the absence of evidence or based on conjured up evidence. They don't care, bishops and SPs don't have the time nor man power to fully investigate, and the charges stand regardless of your innocence.

Good luck attempting to fight a corrupt institution. It is rotten to the core.

I think it depends on the nature of the charges, and how much you bring in to the church in tithing dollars, verses how bad you make the church look in the press, through your affiliation with it. If you murder someone in cold blood, you will almost certainly get ex-communicated. However, I know men who have been arrested for domestic violence, who served jail time, who were able to keep their church affiliation, by promising to be a better.

BTW, I think the reason the wife beaters got off, is because wife beating is surprising common, and the church wouldn't have enough people to fill church callings, if they suddenly started exing everyone who got arrested for it. Easier for them to just sweep it under the rug.

As I recall, according to the Handbook,there are only three grievous sins that require excommunication, murder, rape, and incest. The rest are negotiable, depending on the "penitent nature" of the wrong-doer. Still, handbook notwithstanding, all the rest is totally arbitrary. Some stake presidents will not ex a guy for adultery, while another may ex a guy for masturbation.

As for financial crimes, there are now and always have been guys who were convicted and even sent to prison who continued to stand in good stead with the church. There was the guy who went to prison in the Bonneville Pacific case, kept his temple recommend, then became a BYU guest professor a few years after his release. There's this LDS family who defrauded the public for $187 million. They were in the news just last night. It would be interesting to watch what happens to them. My guess is, there will be church discipline only if it embarrasses the church. Otherwise, his stake president and high council buddies will look at each other with wide eyes and say, "That could have happened to me!," and won't have much to say about it.

Much of the time, unless a person is very wealthy and/or connected, factual innocence (i.e. the person accused and charged with the crime REALLY DID NOT DO IT) has little to do with somebody pleading guilty.

It is sad and shocking to many lay people, but people plead guilty to crimes they have not committed every day to take advantage of the Prosecution's Plea Offer!

Think about this example: You are in management in a large company where crimes are occurring, but you really don't know what's going on. One day at work, the cops show up and you are in handcuffs on the 6 O'Clock News, charged with Racketeering, Theft, conspiracy, etc.
You get an offer to plead guilty to one "minor" felony count, with a recommendation for 1 year in prison, to testify against the other defendants, pay restitution, etc.

Sounds harsh and it is so. The alternative is to roll the dice, be ruined financially paying for a defense attorney and still run the risk of being convicted of multiple serious felonies with a potential for decades in prison.

You decide that to mitigate the potential for further damage, you will take the plea offer, eventhough you are innocent.

Unfortunately, it's usually only the "real criminals" who can afford to fund their legal defense as they have access to funds
that regular working folks don't!

Pleading guilty to what you have not done is not only common,it is specifically authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Check out the case, do an internet search for "North Carolina v. Alford."

We never know what has really gone on. Keep that in mind.